Prof Sir Jonathan Van-Tam, the former deputy medical officer for England, has given evidence at the UK Covid inquiry
Describing the "horrendous" workload he and others faced, he said his family also received death threats - which came as a surprise
Van-Tam voiced concerns that others might think twice about signing up for a top-level role like his during a future crisis
Like other top scientists, Van-Tam said he was not consulted on the Eat Out to Help Out scheme - though then-chancellor Rishi Sunak has insisted scientific advice was followed through the pandemic
Earlier, Van-Tam's boss Prof Sir Chris Whitty told the inquiry that making herd immunity a policy goal would have been "inconceivable", and he argued against it
Whitty also said delaying the first lockdown would have meant "very deep trouble" - a view echoed by Van-Tam, who said the restriction should have happened "seven to 14" days earlier
This phase of the inquiry is looking at pandemic decision-making. No-one will be found guilty or innocent; the purpose is to learn lessons
Baroness Hallett has reopened questions to Sir Chris Whitty.
She emphasises today's hearing will finish on time at 16:30, as England's chief medical officer will need to return tomorrow.
If you'd like to watch his evidence in full, click the play button at the top of this page.
Image source, Crown CopyrightJust before heading on a break, Hugo Keith KC asked Whitty about a meeting on 4 February with then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson, Health Secretary Matt Hancock and other government officials.
Whitty explained he shared that it was reasonable to think that the Covid pandemic could possibly lead to "maybe 100,000 to 300,000 deaths".
Whitty said despite that warning, geo-political threats that predict high fatalities are treated differently to ones seen as "natural threats".
Keith went on to ask why the government wasn't "electrified" by the risks of Covid he raised.
Whitty replied by repeating his earlier point - that the system is "surprisingly bad" at responding to threats from natural disasters and there is much room for improvement in this area.
Image source, Crown CopyrightBaroness Hallett has called for a quick break in proceedings, saying the in inquiry will return at 15:30.
Just before calling for the break, she acknowledged that England's chief medical officer is unlikely to finish giving evidence today.
Jim Reed
Health reporter
That was one of the first times in today's session Whitty gave a concrete example of something the UK authorities could and should have done differently.
Asked about the first cases of Covid emerging in Wuhan in January 2020, he said that the UK didn't "consider enough" the possibility of mandatory quarantine for all travellers arriving from China.
He suggested closing borders or stopping flights might have been a step too far politically.
But telling arrivals, even those without symptoms, they would have to isolate at home for 10 or 14 days could have been considered.
As it was, the UK didn't introduce quarantine for travellers from Wuhan until 25 February 2020.
Other countries introduced measures much earlier. The US banned all arrivals from China, apart from US residents, from 2 February and New Zealand from 3 February.
Whitty said, in reality, this measure would not have made much difference at the time.
Genetic testing showed the vast majority of Covid infections were spread not by Chinese travellers, but by British tourists coming back from half-term holidays in mainland Europe in mid-February.
But he also said tougher quaratine should be an option for the authorities to consider in any future outbreak.
The line of questioning has moved onto border closures, including records from a Sage meeting on 28 January 2020 showing the group felt reducing travel would not be effective.
Whitty confirms to Keith the group of scientific advisers - including himself - were confident that closing the borders would have "a very minimal effect".
What might have happened if China had shut its own borders right at the start of the pandemic is a "different matter", he goes on to say.
After being shown the Sage document from 22 January 2020 looking at human-to-human transmission, Whitty is asked whether there was any doubt in his mind that Covid was a very dangerous and transmissible virus.
Whitty responds instantly, saying: "Yes, I didn't have any doubt about that".
Hugo Keith KC goes on to ask Whitty about a meeting of the government's key scientific advisers on 22 January 2020.
The inquiry's lead counsel asks how sure, at this meeting of the Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (Sage), was Whitty that sustained human-to-human transmission of Covid was a problem?
"I was confident - and I think everyone was confident - that there was at least some sustained transmission at this point in time," Whitty replies.
He adds that this did not mean the high rate of transmission would have been "sustainable indefinitely".
Whitty is also asked if a lockdown would have been called sooner, if fully formulated plans were produced more quickly than they had been.
England's chief medical officer says problems with data and testing were a bigger delay to implementing Covid measures, rather than the lack of any government documents.
He also says a full plan would have needed ministers to be more forthcoming on their decision-making and strategic goals.
Keith continues to press Whitty on how prepared the UK was for a pandemic in early 2020.
"We were thin on the ground," Whitty admits.
He explains Covid pandemic preparations began "in earnest" over a month between January and February 2020.
Whitty goes on to say if one had been laid out already that "it would almost certainly have been the wrong plan".
He adds having a plan in place "could have even slowed us down because we would have spend ages arguing if this was the right plan and adapting the plan".
Whitty argues that sometimes it is easier to start planning from scratch - but he also acknowledges that it would have been helpful if the right "building blocks" had been available to experts.
Image source, Crown CopyrightThe counsel to the inquiry, Hugo Keith KC, begins the afternoon session by asking Whitty to outline where he thinks the deficiencies were in the UK's ability to respond to a pandemic.
Whitty cites both problems with planning and with the establishment of the NHS.
In terms of the UK's health service, he points to a lack of hospital beds compared to the population and the erosion of public health facilities as being serious problems.
He goes on to say he looked at the UK's existing pandemic flu plan and came to the conclusion it was "pretty clear it wasn't going to give us any help".
Whitty adds that it is his view "we didn't have a useful plan", saying it was "optimistic at best" to think there was one "we could take off the shelf" to deal with Covid.
Quote Message"Had we had a flu pandemic, with a virus that had a mortality of, for the sake of argument, 1% to 2%, which is what we were thinking of at this point in time, it would also have been woefully deficient."
The lunch break is over and Sir Chris Whitty, the chief medical officer for England, has returned to give more evidence to the Covid inquiry.
We'll be bringing you key updates on what he says, as well as analysis from our health and politics correspondents.
You can also watch the session live by clicking the play button at the top of this page.
Earlier in today's session, Sir Chris Whitty expressed concern about a lack of clarity over whether legal protections are extended to scientific advisers who aren't civil servants.
Jim Reed
Health reporter
Sir Chris Whitty was asked this morning if ministers understood that locking down the country was even a possibility in those early stages of the pandemic.
He said it was "all over the newspapers" that a strict lockdown had been imposed in Wuhan and other regions of China, and was starting to be used in Europe "a matter of days" before the UK.
So how did the timing of lockdowns compare?
In the UK, people were told they should stop non-essential contact from 16 March with schools and then bars and restaurants closed by the following weekend.
A full national lockdown with a mandatory stay-at-home order was announced on 23 March.
Sir Chris Whitty says it "took a while for some to internalise" the scale of the pandemic
While the inquiry is taking a break for lunch, now is a good time to bring you an overview of what Sir Chris Whitty has said so far today:
Let's return to an exchange earlier, when Hugo Keith KC mentioned a book by Sir Jeremy Farrar, a leading British scientist, and asked Sir Chris Whitty about supposed tensions between him and his fellow leading adviser Sir Patrick Vallance.
Farrar wrote that Vallance and Whitty were split between “waiting and wading in” when Covid first emerged in the country.
Whitty responds that Farrar “had a book to sell and that made it more exciting”.
Watch: Tensions with Vallance exaggerated to sell book - Whitty
Baroness Hallett has adjourned today's session of the Covid inquiry until 14:00 - Sir Chris Whitty will be back after lunch to give more evidence.
Stay with us as we bring you analysis of what we've heard from the chief medical officer for England so far today.
Hugo Keith KC, the inquiry's lead counsel, presses Whitty on whether more could have been done sooner to stress the risk Covid posed.
Highlighting Sage expert Professor Sir Jonathan Van Tam expressing concern about the virus's pandemic potential on 16 January 2020, Keith asks if there should have been a higher degree of alarm among scientific advisers.
Whitty says on the evidence at the time - 16 January - he doesn't think it was obvious emergency Sage or Cobra meetings should have been called.
He adds it is also not obvious what exactly they would have discussed.
But Whitty also emphasises that experts were taking the virus very seriously at this stage.
Helen Catt
Political correspondent
The observation that the mantra of "following the science" had been a "millstone round their necks" is a significant one.
Professor Sir Chris Whitty suggests that it blurred the distinction between scientific advice and political decisions.
That, of course, has the potential to be helpful to a government taking unpalatable decisions so it seems likely it’s something the inquiry will return to when it hears from the politicians.
Image source, Covid inquiryIt’s also notable because Whitty, who is still in his post, has been less critical of the government than some previous witnesses.
While he said the operation around Boris Johnson was “chaotic” and the way he took decisions was “unique to him”, he was keen to say he believed that had been true of other governments.
He also said he wanted to make it clear that, in his view, the most senior politicians who were making the decisions did not “cherry pick” scientific advice.
Unlike some officials who have already appeared before the inquiry, Whitty refuses to be drawn into criticism of Boris Johnson, who was prime minister during the pandemic.
Keith continues to push Whitty on how decisions were taken by senior ministers and points to "ample evidence" that Johnson had "difficulty in reaching a clear and consistent position".
Whitty tells the inquiry that the way Johnson took decisions was "unique to him".
"That's a euphemism if ever I've heard it," Keith suggests.
"He has a distinct style," Whitty replies, adding: "I won't make commentary on individual politicians."
Nick Triggle
Health Correspondent
As the pandemic developed, there was much interest in whether ministers were following the science.
This was seen when the minutes of the advisory committee Sage were published - and sometimes led to accusations that the government was going against scientific advice.
But Professor Sir Chris Whitty has made clear that those accusations missed the mark somewhat. He said he never told the government what to do.
What the scientists were doing were providing technical information to help ministers make a decision.
Sage – and Whitty and Sir Patrick Vallance personally – did not tell ministers what to do in terms of restrictions, circuit breakers and lockdowns.
Instead, it was about explaining what would happen if they did X or did not do X. But deciding whether the cost of doing or not doing X was “entirely a political decision”, Whitty said.
That is because there were “no good choices” – there are other consequences and factors that needed considering.
The phrase “following the science”, Whitty said, became a “millstone around our necks”.